Appeal No. 1997-1636 Page 11
Application No. 08/204,996
Third, the appellants argue, “the references do not
permit layer-to-layer transfer. Therefore, the references do
not meet the limitation of claim 1 that ‘incoming data can be
allocated to processors of a first layer and transferred
sequentially to processors of subsequent layers for
processing.’” (Appeal Br. at 8.) The examiner replies,
“Lawton teaches that control of informational data may be
transferred from a processor to another processor ....”
(Examiner’s Answer at 7.) We agree with the examiner.
The appellants err in considering the references in less
than their entirety. A reference must be considered as a
whole for what it reveals “to workers in the art.” Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1595 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, it is unclear on which
portion of Lawton the appellants focus. The reference,
however, teaches much more.
Specifically, it teaches the loading of data “into the first
column of the processor elements 10 (processing block 205).”
Col. 7, ll. 36-38. It also teaches “the transfer of data ...
between interconnecting cells ....,” col. 3, ll. 44-45;
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007